A GOOD COMPROMISE? (PART II): I asked whether the Bush-McCain deal on interrogations was a good one. In the comment section, Randy pointed to a WaPo editorial which said "no":

In short, it's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that "there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved." In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent.

I still have plenty of reading to do on the subject, but so far the deal sounds more like a truce than a cave-in. The law won't authorize abusive interrogation tactics, but Bush can do so on his own authority. Right now, no one is being subjected to such tactics. If Bush tries to subect any prisoners to such tactics, Congress has the right to reconsider.

Sounds to me like the issue has just been postponed. Although, on the bright side, Rep. Pelosi apparently thinks the Senate bested the White House:

JIM LEHRER: Just based on just the rough knowledge that we all have of this, it looks to you, at least, as if the president and the White House blinked on this?